On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:06:31PM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:03:41AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > + audit_get_parent(parent); > > fsnotify_destroy_mark(&parent->mark); > > + audit_put_parent(parent); > > Hi, > > What about taking an extra ref on an inode mark in send_to_group() > before we call handle_event()? > So we dont have to handle the cases in which a mark is destroyed > explicitly... The thing is, on most of the method calls we won't need that at all. And it costs quite a bit, so I'm afraid that this variant is the way to go. Yes, it would be nicer to do that in caller, but... Dunno... Neither instance actually touches the mark after that destroy_mark and we have very few of those guys (fortunately). So removing this BUG_ON() instead might be the right thing to do. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
